Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory Mission Fails

Posted by timothy on from the couldn't-make-it-through-all-the-soot dept.

jw3 writes "The NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory scheduled for launch today has failed its mission: the payload fairing failed to separate and the launch managers declared a contingency. George Diller, NASA launch commentator, said, 'It either did not separate or did not separate in the way that it should, but at any rate we're still trying to evaluate exactly what the status of the spacecraft is at this point.'" Update: 02/24 14:17 GMT by T : Reader fadethepolice points out a Reuters report which says that the craft crashed into the ocean just short of Antarctica.

40 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    is a hoax, and the rocket knows it was just wasting time and money. It threw the launch.

  2. Evaluating the status? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Without a full investigation, I'd hypothesize tha the status is "laying in many pieces on the ice somewhere in Antarctica."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Evaluating the status? by ruin20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well that's what they get for trying to launch a satellite with a Taurus. I had one back in the late ninties and the tranny on them was completely worthless. It should come as no surprise that, just when you needed, a Ford breaks down.

      --
      Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
    2. Re:Evaluating the status? by jimwormold · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was thinking of an entirely different type of tranny, you old time talker you.

    3. Re:Evaluating the status? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Funny

      In other news, the Antarctic research station isn't responding :-)

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    4. Re:Evaluating the status? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was thinking of an entirely different type of tranny, you old time talker you.

      I think we are thinking of the same kind of tranny, and "the tranny in the Ford Taurus is completely useless" matches my experiences pretty well. Goddamn Wanda.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  3. What's the contingency for these missions? by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know with the Mars rovers the cost of a second rover was small change compared to the development cost of the original. The launch vehicle is expensive, of course, but it was considered cheaper to launch two missions and hope one succeeded than launching one that could fail and mean all the money was wasted.

    What sort of contingency do they have for sats like this? Do they just fabricate another one and try again in a year or two?

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:What's the contingency for these missions? by confused+one · · Score: 4, Informative

      Contingency? We don't have no contingency. Seriously though: looks like the only options are to either hope someone else's similar but not quite equivalent satellite generates data they can use; or, spend the money to build and launch a replacement. By the way, they spent 7 years building, testing and waiting for launch, not 2.

    2. Re:What's the contingency for these missions? by Paranatural · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but even before they launched, the builders were saying how much easier it would be to build a second one, now that all the design work was done and they have experience putting it together. They could probably create it all over again (comparatively) cheaply.

      On second thought, maybe they should tack on a year for design refinements and take a look at that whole separation module thingy.

    3. Re:What's the contingency for these missions? by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Informative

      On second thought, maybe they should tack on a year for design refinements and take a look at that whole separation module thingy.

      The team that designed the satellite didn't design the rocket. The rocket was a "Taurus XL", built by a different team to the OCO team (not even by NASA).

      I imagine less than 7 years went into the rocket's design, and that it cost much less than $270 million, so I would guess the team behind the satellite would be pretty damn pissed. (I wonder if they insure it etc, and what sort of rates they have to pay to do so)

      At any rate it's a real tragedy for everyone; knowing much more about where CO2 comes from and goes would have been a huge leap forward for the study of global warming.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:What's the contingency for these missions? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The main difference is that Mars has historically been very unfriendly to probes (both surface and orbital). Low Earth orbit we have a much better handle on, you can generally assume that launches will succeed.

      Of course the Taurus XL launch vehicle hasn't been an overwhelming success, it's 6 for 8 now... Though when the failure comes from payload or fairing separation you'll get people pointing fingers at each other as to what caused the problem. From what I can see the actual rocket stages all performed correctly.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    5. Re:What's the contingency for these missions? by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the builders were saying how much easier it would be to build a second one, now that all the design work was done and they have experience putting it together

      First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? -S.R. Hadden

    6. Re:What's the contingency for these missions? by bughunter · · Score: 5, Informative

      I worked on the instrument team for OCO from 1999-2004, and on similar instruments in the past. Yes, it is much easier to build another, but unfortunately, it's not really that much cheaper from a mission point of view, since the launch vehicle and satellite buss are a large fraction of the cost, and most of that is already incremental cost, not NRE. Usually, NASA considers the risk of launch failure and requires contractors to keep records adequate to build another on an incremental basis.

      One other cost factor is the ground segment -- the mission operations center and the data analysis facility. As I understood it five years ago, there were plans to build a rather large data center to crunch all the spectrometry data that OCO would have sent down. That didn't get sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

      And while I don't think anyone is "pissed," the mission and instrument teams are probably quite dejected. Especially Dr. Crisp, the principal investigator. That was his baby.

      There is a good chance that NASA may still "do it over" however, 1) because of the reduced "incremental" cost, and 2) to support Pres. Obama's environmental policy.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  4. NASA Satellite lands in ocean by langelgjm · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to the NYT, that's pretty much what happened: NASA Satellite Lands in Ocean

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean by ruin20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      So this means that in the battle against climate change, the biggest shot NASA has taken thus far is a rocket attack on Antarctica.

      --
      Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
    2. Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean by GaryOlson · · Score: 3, Funny

      No...to measure ice melt properties in Antarctica, NASA scattered a non-homogeneous collection of light reflection and absorption particle on the shelf. Approval to scatter material all across Antarctica would have been delayed in committee for months using normal methods. This way, everyone feels sorry for NASA that they lost a scientific rocket when in fact they have succeeded.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    3. Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean by ashitaka · · Score: 5, Funny

      An ICBM is what happens when you take a shit outside in Antarctica.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  5. Rebuild? by talcite · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if they have another OCO sitting as backup somewhere? Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch. Also, the BBC confirmed that the OCO is in the antarctic right now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7907570.stm

    1. Re:Rebuild? by jnik · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch
      Not usually...at least none of the NASA or AFRL projects I'm familiar with has a full-build spare. It's not entirely uncommon to have a second of some of the instruments, and it's pretty common to have enough spare parts to build another copy of an instrument. (Much easier to buy a couple of spares up front rather than wait around if someone screws something up.) Then testing and integration can go much more quickly and cheaply, having done it once before. It still can take awhile, though.

      (Incidentally, the title and summary for this article suck...the OCO didn't fail, it was lost in a launch failure, and it didn't "fail its mission," it didn't get a chance to start. That's like saying your car broke down because someone ran a red light and T-boned it. No offense intended to the launch team.)

    2. Re:Rebuild? by carambola5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It depends on the project, but space projects - even small payloads aboard larger craft - are invariably built in sets. Unfortunately, you usually can't just launch one of the "spares" because they're not actually spares. They are identical units that are tested near (or beyond) the point of failure to predict lifetime of the one flight unit. These are called qualification units, or "Qual Units." Occasionally, you'll also have one or two ground-based units (ground-support equipment, or GSEs) that mimic the project's function but aren't necessarily built with space in mind... for example, expensive weight-saving milling operations have been omitted or cheaper wiring (PVC) may have replaced expensive space-worthy wiring (Teflon).

      --
      IWARS.
      People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    3. Re:Rebuild? by CraftyJack · · Score: 3, Informative

      We seem to have different definitions for GSE. If a piece of hardware matches form, fit, and function, but uses different materials, I'd tend to call it a brassboard. For me, GSE usually refers to interface mockups, support electronics, etc. for testing a subsystem.

  6. Fantastic! by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    The telemetry from the satellite is reading zero across the board. That must mean there's no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere anymore. Now we don't have to worry about global warming - fantastic!

    Good work, NASA. I knew we could get this climate change thing cleared up once we had better data.

    --
    The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
  7. Taurus XL by JumboMessiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....

    1. Re:Taurus XL by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seems more like they used a Taurus. If one of those gets where it's going, it's a miracle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Taurus XL by zuckie13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Taurus was probably chosen because it was cheaper than the Delta II (since the satellite didn't need the full capacity of a Delta II), was available, and fit the mission profile. It has had 5 or 6 successful launches, including launches for the Air Force/NRO, so it was a proven vehicle before this. The A-train constellation (which OCO was going to join) is a high inclination orbit (98.2 degrees), so Vandenberg was used for the launch site.

  8. well we're f*****d by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Informative

    This probe would have provided millions of carbon dioxide measurements a day* for the entire atmospheric column (rather than the hundreds of measurements, usually only at ground level that we currently get from our fixed sensors). Considering the importance these measurements would be in helping us predict climate change, I think we (the human race) has just suffered a serious setback.

    [There was a scene in the movie "Silent Running" where the command is given to jettison and detonate the last remaining biospheres. The commander says "may god have mercy on us". I'm beginning to feel that way now.]

    *it was going to take readings at 56,000 locations a day but at each location would record carbon dioxide concentrations for the entire air column.

    1. Re:well we're f*****d by tpheiska · · Score: 5, Funny

      So we lost a machine that would have given us concrete evidence on the *possible* increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. And now NASA lost it even though they haven't lost an earth orbit bound spacecraft in a while. Let me get my tinfoil hat.

      --
      "wahts woring iwth my tyoping?"
    2. Re:well we're f*****d by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes CO2 is barely anything compared to water vapor (I'll take your word on that, I don't know). And compared to Nitrogen or even Oxygen it's less than nothing.

      However perhaps it is a particularly effective greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, like maybe the how difference between Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 is the difference between a nice metal suitable for armor piercing shells and a nuclear bomb. So when a climatologist tells me it's a critical piece of understanding the climate, I tend to believe them. I'm not a climatologist, are you?

      The reason why I believe this is important is because the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists in allied fields tell me so. Why do I believe them? Because they went TO SCHOOL and STUDIED HARD and EARNED LOTS OF DEGREES that I was either unwilling or unable to do. Still I know some of them and, unlike many right wingers, I do not think they are part of some vast conspiracy that only seems to accept smart people as members (or maybe I do!). Even if I didn't know any of them personally, I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.

      You know, I don't know if you're a right winger but I've noticed more and more of them suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE as they find their most highly cherished held beliefs overthrown by the facts. Evolution? Well all Biologists must be wrong! The age of the earth being older than 6000 years? Well all Geologists, Astronomers and Physicists must be wrong! Global Warming? Climatologists, Oceanographers... Hell all of science must be wrong! They're all in cohoots to raise my taxes!

    3. Re:well we're f*****d by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point, I had heard about the Japanese satellite but hadn't really looked into it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as capable of tracking the carbon dioxide levels.

      "OCO's spectrometer will provide greater sensitivity on carbon dioxide measurements but is unable to detect methane. GOSAT's orbit is designed to bring the satellite over the same location more often, allowing the craft's lower resolution instrument to create a new global map every three days."

      The real key is whether the Japanese satellite was going to take A SINGLE MEASUREMENT for each data point (that's what appears to be in the articles I've read) or get a reading of the entire atmospheric column (providing a vertical graph of the carbon dioxide level was for each location). NASA had a specific set of three instruments designed to do just that . If the Japanese satellite does that as well then you're probably right I'm overreacting since a three fold drop in resolution is probably still good enough. If not, then there is a vast difference in not just the amount but the TYPE of data returned.

    4. Re:well we're f*****d by TempeTerra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Disregarding the melodrama of the GP, I know of several good reasons to measure CO_2 throughout the atmosphere and I'm sure the actual scientists know some more.

      The atmosphere is actually quite complex, with different layers and surprisingly little mixing between different levels. I mostly know about the southern ozone hole, being from New Zealand which is still pretty fucked by it. The CFCs which destroyed the ozone were released all over the world - mostly in the northern hemisphere even, since that's where the majority of the population is. However the southern polar vortex is the major cause of mixing between the lower and upper atmosphere, so as the CFCs drifted down to Antarctica they were ejected to the upper atmosphere - where the ozone layer is - and reacted with the ozone there eating a big hole in it.

      Similarly, CO_2 is released a ground level, but what effect does it have in different layers of the atmosphere? How fast does distribution to different layers occur? With a satellite which could measure this we could build up a body of data correlating CO_2 concentrations in different parts of the atmosphere with climate change and characterise the movement of CO_2 concentrations through the system, giving us an idea of the lead-in time for CO_2 climate change.

      As for why CO_2 is important: it's one variable in a complex equation but it's the one we're directly fiddling with.

      My prediction: Nasa will launch another satellite, and the research project will be set back 6 months. Yawn.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    5. Re:well we're f*****d by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But compared to water vapor, you know, clouds. It's barely anything.

      Yeah, but while the levels of CO2 can and have increased dramatically, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is limited to the saturation point and is self-regulating. You know, rain.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:well we're f*****d by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, even though I've researched these issues (much?) more than the average person, once again, I'm not a climatologist. At some point, everyone in this world has to trust other people, there is simply too much information for one person to understand it all (the last person in history who is thought to have known everything at the time was Sir Francis Bacon).

      So, who do you trust? Well if I have a serious illness, I'll trust my doctor/surgeon. If I'm on a plane I'll trust my pilot. If I'm a soldier in a war I'll trust my general. If I'm a general (who wants to make sure the bombs will go off) I'll trust my scientists. Basically, the vast consensus of scientists working in climatology think we're headed for (man-made) trouble.

        If a climatologist told me that my computer processor was inefficient I might disregard him, or if my neurologist told me that concrete was a poorer building material than steel I might ignore him. But these are people who've specialized and studied a long time in their respective fields. While science has certainly gone into blind alleys, it has, over time proven its accuracy in describing the real world. (Read about life in the middle ages).

      I don't know anything about your anecdote regarding Greenland, the only one I know is that the Vikings named Greenland "Green" land to fool people to think it was valuable (when they really colonized Iceland). Still I hope you don't base your life around anecdotes; for example I hope you don't believe in not vaccinating your kids because you've heard it causes autism.

    7. Re:well we're f*****d by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're absolutely right when you say that Science isn't about voting on truth. Best example I can think of plate tectonics; the guy who promoted that was derided as a loony because "continents don't move".

      But then a funny thing happened. More and more data came up to support him. First the fossil similarities on both sides of the atlantic. Then the mid atlantic ridge. Finally, if it wasn't already proven in almost all geologists minds, they found the active spreading.

      That's the thing about science. Sure you might be the underdog but the "truth" will win out in the end. It has to, because nature is always right. The problem with this Spencer guy (sorry, never heard of him) is that with more and more data being collected (alas not from the OCO) there are more and more climatologists believing in man-made warming. No good scientist will say they are 100% certain (look at the ICC report, it is all in probabilities) on such a complex issue but it is apparent that the evidence is getting stronger not weaker. Again, maybe Spencer is a genius but he'll have to prove it. If he does, he'll be famous like the guy who came up with tectonic drift ("I" don't know his name but I'm sure just about every geologist does!).

      Actually it's funny that you mentioned Spencer. I followed the Wikipedia link and briefly skimmed his bio. You mention that the last two paragraphs of what I wrote is "Not relevant". After reading Spencer's bio it's so relevant it's funny! I was going to say that everybody has an opinion and sometimes that opinion can't be changed by facts no matter how strong. That's called BELIEF. Without reading Spencer's bio an inch further, I'll bet you he's some sort of fundamentalist or born again Christian. Why? Because he's got all this evidence staring him in the face on global warming (and supposedly evolution) and he draws the opposite conclusion that 95% of his colleagues do. YOU CAN'T CHANGE SOMEONE'S MIND IF IT'S CLOSED. So I have to thank you, you've proved that my last two paragraphs are Very relevant!

    8. Re:well we're f*****d by Ambitwistor · · Score: 3, Informative

      The CO2 causing warming myth is nothing but media and political hype...

      Given your statements below, I don't think your knowledge of this subject warrants such bold assertions.

      Looking at the data, it's clear to see that CO2 increase follows, not leads, an increase in temperature.

      In the glacial-interglacial cycle, this is true, but it's also not a surprise; it's a prediction of Milankovitch theory, which existed before any lags or leads were ever measured in the data. It also does not imply that CO2 has no effect on temperature.

      If there is causation (thus far only some correlation has been established), then the rise in CO2 is caused by the increase in temperature, not the other way around.

      It's both. According to the Milankovitch theory, orbital variations cause shifts in temperature. These temperature shifts cause changes in the carbon cycle, which alters CO2 levels. The altered CO2 levels in turn amplify the original orbital temperature change.

      If you leave the CO2 feedback part of that process out, then you can't explain the amplitude of the glacial-interglacial cycles anymore, and it's unclear whether you can even, say, trigger a glaciation without the contribution of CO2 drawdown.

      For those that support the CO2 driving the increase, I've yet to see how the climate models explain how the temperature 450 million years ago was colder than it has ever been in the last half billion years, but the CO2 levels were 10 times what we have today.

      You could start here, here, or here.

      And for those arguing that human activity is driving the increase, why does the rate of increase vary so greatly (particularly looking at the significant decrease in rate during 1991-1993) despite the consistent growth of human CO2 producing activities.

      Human emissions don't vary smoothly, nor does the terrestrial carbon sink, which has quite a bit of interannual variability due to climatic effects on, e.g., photosynthesis and heterotrophic respiration. Just as a guess, I'd look first at the collapse of the Soviet Union (assuming there is a significant slowdown during those years, which I haven't checked).

      As for human activity driving the observed increase, that's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Nobody seriously argues that part of the story anymore; there are about six independent lines of evidence, including historic emissions data, measurements of cumulative ocean carbon and air-sea CO2 fluxes, measurements of terrestrial CO2 fluxes, modeling of said fluxes, shifts in carbon isotope ratios in air and sea, and changes in the CO2/O2 ratio of the atmosphere.

      However, it seems that deforestation along with ever expanding cities with concrete and asphalt that absorb and radiate heat make an even better explanation than CO2,

      Urban heat islands don't explain the warming. CIties are a small fraction of the Earth's surface and the amount of heat they radiate, even if you take into account subsidiary albedo changes, isn't big enough to account for the warming. Land use change is a good idea in principle (e.g., due to surface albedo changes, alterations in evapotranspiration, etc.), because it's more widespread. But it still falls well short in magnitude: in some locations it has a substantial effect on local temperatures, but simply doesn't explain the global amount or spatial distribution of surface warming.

  9. Re:Whick rocket? by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Funny

    That was _last_ season. This season we'll be monitoring CO2 levels from space. Also planned are mapping cow farts via Google maps mashups and planned for season three: a Google maps/Zillow mashup showing the exact number of humans on the African sub-continent who could have survived for more than a month on the energy wasted through the carbon footprint of every house in America. That's right. Search for your house in Zillow and be instantly notified of how many people died so you could watch the superbowlcrapgame in comfort and style. Additional efforts by season 2 sponsor AT&T will allow you to track high CO2 outputters via GPS in their phones. Season 3 sponsors AT&T and General Dynamics plan to bring you HCO European edition via UAV. That's right, each week we'll allow one Republican Evangelical to get "up close and personal" with one of Europe's most prolific CO2 outputters via UAV. The fun never ends.

    Thanks to the FTC, EPA, and several other federal agencies, there will be no tax credits, carbon credits, alternative energies, or in fact any plan to reduce CO2 outputs. We just want you to see what you could have done to help the world. It's a feel better move, change you can relax with.

    ---
    This message brought to you by ExxonNonMobile, "fuel for a greener tomorrow"
    ---

    What actually happened is that the aliens hiding behind the moon realized we'd notice their trail of hothouse gases from terraforming equipment on the moon, and have disabled the rocket to ensure the satellite does not do its job.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  10. Civilization Sabotage! by Mr_Perl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dear Lincoln,

    Ha ha old man, I had to spend much in sabotaging your CO2 monitoring satellite. But now all your base are belong to us.

    Signed,
    Chairman Mao
    Chinese Empire

    --

    My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
  11. NASA on Twitter by opec · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's kind of weird, interesting, and depressing to watch this history be made through NASA's Twitter updates:
    • The countdown has begun in California for the launch of NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory in less than 1 hour. The stars are out tonight!
    • Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) update: Weather is perfect for launch in less than half an hour.
    • OCO launch update: Liftoff is now set for 4:55 EST. Catch it on www.nasa.gov/ntv
    • OCO launch update: WE HAVE LIFTOFF!
    • OCO launch update: We have Stage 3 ignition. The mission is off to a great start!
    • OCO launch update: We have a mission failure. Press briefing to be held at Vandenberg in approximately 2 hours.
  12. Oh dear. by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the key satillite designed to monitor global warming and CO2 pollution and hence get scientific data that might affect global business and industrial nations has just nose dived into Antartica?

    lets make sure nobody tells the conspiracy theorists, they could have a ball with this one.

  13. Re:heh by TempeTerra · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a particular capitalisation style. To shamelessly repeat someone else's response from last time this came up: the BBC style does not capitalise acronyms which are pronounced as words. [radar] would not be capitalised because it's a pronounced word which happens to be an acronym. [Nasa] has the first letter capitalised because it's used as a proper noun. [BBC] is all capitalised because it's an acronym pronounced B.B.C.

    --
    .evom ton seod gis eht
  14. Re:it's just you by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I will follow my doctor's advice (or the majority if my second opinion doesn't agree)

    I will follow the instructions of the cabin attendants (while kissing my butt goodbye)

    I will follow their instructions unless it looks like suicide (no kamikaze pilot I). Basically I'm fucked

    I will follow what the climatologists say is the rational way to get out or AMELIORATE this problem. I would most certainly HELP THEM GET MORE DATA (which is why losing the OSO pisses me off). If I'm a snowflake, I guess I'll just melt.

    What exactly are you suggesting I do? We (should?) play the cards we are dealt with in the best (most rational) way we can.